Suchergebnisse

In the 1990s, Bolivia's indigenous population mobilized to claim new political roles, and in the process, directly challenged the privileged position of economic elites within national political institutions. In response, business associations in Santa Cruz, Bolivia's most prosperous region, began to demand regional autonomy—in contrast to the demand for authoritarianism that characterized prior generations of business elites when confronted with threatening political change. After examining Santa Cruz' past relationship with the national government, this article explores the challenges that led economic elites in the department to seek autonomy and the strategies that they have adopted in pursuit of this goal.

In recent years, decentralization and regional autonomy measures have figured prominently in negotiations designed to end some of the world's most important conflicts, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Sudan. Reforms that shift powers to subnational units deserve the attention of those who are trying to promote security via institutional design, but the risks associated with these territorial reforms are considerable. When political and economic resources are transferred to subnational governments in the attempt to create meaningful access to the political system for former combatants, the great risk is that these same resources can be used to finance a continuation of the armed struggle instead. In response to the popularity of territorial reforms in many post-conflict settings, this paper sounds a cautionary note by evaluating the negative impact of decentralization on security in Colombia, site of Latin America's longest and deadliest armed conflict. After analyzing the design decisions of reformers who hoped that decentralization would help end the conflict, I argue that decentralization in fact financed the expansion of armed clientelism by illegal groups on both the left and right. Thanks to the weakness of the police in much of the national territory, guerrillas and paramilitaries have been able to use decentralized resources to destabilize the state, limiting even further its monopoly over the use of force and creating what are in effect parallel states on the left and right. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractThis study challenges the common view of authoritarianism as an unambiguously centralizing experience by investigating the subnational reforms that military governments actually introduced in Latin America. It argues that the decision by military authorities to dismiss democratically elected mayors and governors opened a critical juncture for the subsequent development of subnational institutions. Once they centralized political authority, the generals could contemplate changes that expanded the institutional, administrative, and governing capacity of subnational governments. This article shows how cross-national variation in the content and consistency of the generals' economic goals led to quite distinct subnational changes; in each case, these reforms profoundly shaped the democracies that reemerged in the 1980s and 1990s.

This article conceptualizes decentralization as a change in the institutional rules that divide political authority and governing capacity between levels of government. By emphasizing the institutional dimension, the author argues that different approaches to the study of institutions, namely, rational and historical institutionalism, can generate analytical leverage on the contemporary trend of decentralization. In the Chilean case, rationalist perspectives illuminate the country's continued status as one of Latin America's most centralized polities. Comparatively weak subnational institutions directly reflect the strategic design considerations of national politicians. However, concepts central to historical institutionalism, including critical junctures and unanticipated consequences, explain how and why decentralization gained steam in the postauthoritarian period. Specifically, Chile's shift to more decentralized institutions is the legacy of Pinochet-era reforms of subnational government, sequencing patterns that devolved governing capacity before political authority, and the emergence of new organizational actors who have struggled to decentralize Chile against the opposition of powerful national politicians.